Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.38 seconds)The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection Of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995
Kunal Singh vs Union Of India & Anr on 13 February, 2003
7.(a) In the decision reported in 2003 (2) Supreme 102 (Kunal Singh
v. Union of India & Another) the Honourable Supreme Court held that if a
person has acquired disability by injury during his service and if not found
suitable for the post of constable he was holding, he should be shifted to
some other post with same pay-scale and service benefits but he cannot be
invalidated on this ground from service. The Court further held that Section
47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights
and Full Participation) Act, 1995, casts a statutory obligation on the
employer to protect an employee acquiring disability during service.
Paragraph 9 of the judgment is relevant and the same is extracted hereunder,
"9. Chapter VI of the Act deals with employment relating to
persons with disabilities, who are yet to secure employment. Section 47,
which falls in Chapter VIII, deals with an employee, who is already in service
and acquires a disability during his service. It must be borne in mind that
Section 2 of the Act has given distinct and different definitions of
"disability" and "person with disability". It is well settled that in the
same enactment if two distinct definitions are given defining a
word/expression, they must be understood accordingly in terms of the
definition. It must be remembered that person does not acquire or suffer
disability by choice. An employee, who acquires disability during his
service, is sought to be protected under Section 47 of the Act specifically.
Such employee, acquiring disability, if not protected, would not only suffer
himself but possibly all those who depend on him would also suffer. The very
frame and contents of Section 47 clearly indicate its mandatory nature. The
very opening part of Section reads "no establishment shall dispense with, or
reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service".
The Section further provides that if an employee after acquiring disability is
not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post
with the same pay scale and service benefits; if it is not possible to adjust
the employee against any post he will be kept on a supernumerary post until a
suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever
is earlier. Added to this no promotion shall be denied to a person merely on
the ground of his disability as is evident from sub-section (2) of Section 47.
Section 47 contains a clear directive that the employer shall not dispense
with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires a disability during the
service. In construing a provision of social beneficial enactment that too
dealing with disabled persons intended to give them equal opportunities,
protection of rights and full participation, the view that advances the object
of the Act and serves its purpose must be preferred to the one which obstructs
the object and paralyses the purpose of the Act. Language of Section 47 is
plain and certain casting statutory obligation on the employer to protect an
employee acquiring disability during service."
P. Thangamarimuthu vs Tamil Nadu State Transport ... on 13 December, 2005
(d) This Court in 2006 (1) CTC 124 (P.Thangamarimuthu v. Tamil
Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai (Division-I)) quashed a similar
medical invalidation order passed against a Conductor of the Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation by applying the provisions contained in Section 47 of
the Act and held that it is a beneficial legislation passed in favour of the
disabled persons and the same cannot be narrowly interpreted.
The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Section 2 in The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection Of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Metropolitan Transport vs K. Ravichandran on 7 April, 2005
(c) In an another Division Bench decision reported in 2005 (2) L.W
5 65 (Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Chennai-2 v. K.
Ravichandran), this Court held that the language of section 3(1) of the
Workmen's Compensation Act is different from that of section 47(1) of the
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995. In paragraphs 9 and 10, the Division Bench held
thus,
"9. Thus, the language of Section 3(1) of the Workmen's
Compensation Act is very different from that of Section 47(1) of the 1995 Act.
We cannot import notions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 into the 1995
Act which is a totally different Act.
Metropolitan Transport Corporation, ... vs The Presiding Officer, Principal ... on 15 March, 2004
(b) A Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in
2004 WLR 398 (Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. The Presiding Officer,
Principal Labour Court & Another) upheld the order of the learned single
Judge, cancelling the order of medical invalidation. In paragraphs 5 to 7 of
the Judgment the Division Bench held as under,
"5. Counsel for the appellant sought to rely on a Government Order
of the year 1981 which directs that the persons who are found medically unfit
to continue to work on account of inter alia, of disability acquired during
the course of employment should be treated only as a fresh recruits. It was
therefore, claimed that the Government Order should be allowed to be
implemented and the employees be treated as a fresh recruit.
1